From Warnings to Actions: Factors Influencing Response to Earthquake Early Warning—A Systematic Literature Review
Open accessAbstract
Earthquake early warning (EEW) systems offer critical seconds for protective actions, yet their effectiveness ultimately depends on human interpretation and response. This article presents a systematic literature review of factors shaping public behavior during earthquakes and in response to EEW alerts. Following PRISMA guidelines and the structured approach of Petticrew and Roberts, a comprehensive search was conducted using the Massey University Library Discover platform (1975–2024) and Scopus (1978–2024). Systematic keyword queries targeting EEW, human, and behavioral response dimensions produced 844 records. After duplicate removal and multistage screening, a final set of 45 studies relevant to social aspects of EEW was reviewed and thematically analyzed. The findings demonstrate that behavioral responses to EEW are shaped by interacting demographic, sociocultural, cognitive, and environmental factors. Key influences include age, gender, education, cultural norms, trust, prior experience, perceived efficacy, socioeconomic status, and geographic context. While education and effective risk communication generally strengthen preparedness and protective action, social dynamics, cognitive biases, unequal resource access, and structural constraints can delay or inhibit timely response. The review further reveals a strong geographic concentration of existing research in developed countries, with limited attention to vulnerable contexts, real‐time situational pressures, and decision‐making under extreme time constraints. These findings indicate that EEW effectiveness extends beyond technical performance and requires close integration with social, cultural, and institutional contexts. Advancing EEW practice, therefore, depends on inclusive communication strategies and context‐sensitive system design that better translate warnings into timely, life‐saving action.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The effectiveness of Earthquake Early Warning depends not only on technical performance but also on public awareness, knowledge of system functionality and limitations, message comprehension, and preparedness education.
“However, the effectiveness of EEW depends not only on technical performance but also on public awareness, knowledge of system functionality and limitations, message comprehension, and preparedness education [22][23][24].”
From A comparative study on Earthquake Preparedness of Japanese and International Students in a Nankai Trough Earthquake-threatened Area in Shikoku, Japan (2026) · cites this paper as [23]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Atalyan, T., & Bhandary, N. P. (2026) · Natural Hazards Research · doi:10.1016/j.nhres.2026.07.004
- Authors
- Rostami, K., Becker, J. S., Prasanna, R., & Vinnell, L. J.
- Affiliations
- Massey University (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Rostami, Kianoush
- Venue
- Earthquake Spectra
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2026-04-19
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 1944-8201 (ISSN-L)
- 8755-2930
- OpenAlex
- W7154894566
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 1.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Earthquake Spectra (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- QuakeCoRE (1122)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Seismology and Earthquake Studies
- Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
- Keywords
- earthquake early warning, public response to warnings, protective measures, human behavior, risk communication, earthquake preparedness, sociocultural factors, cognitive biases, socioeconomic status, vulnerable populations, decision-making under time pressure, warning system design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review